AAA industry: Halo fans, you can't have it all!

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

> A: I really don’t know what your problem is. If you don’t like H5 go and play MCC instead.
>
> B: That’s disrespectful. Why should I be limited to that game if I could have a proper Halo successor? I don’t want a copy of previous titles all I’m asking for is a Halo with reasonable changes. Look at chess, sports or Counter Strike – those are timeless formulas, people still love them.

Does that sound unreasonable?
I’m going to explain why this stance might be understandable but won’t make you happy anytime soon.
It all boils down to how the console AAA industry works (read AAA industry and it’s effects on game mechanics).

The premise
A) Console hardware has been traditionally sold with very little or no profit at all. For Xbox to be profitable MS has to secure other sources of income (Xbox Live, software sales,…). Halo as a franchise is hugely important for the economic health of the whole platform. Halo has to sell as many copies as possible, there’s enormous pressure to replicate past successes.
B) The whole console ecosystem with it’s relatively small install base compared to PC or mobile platforms (especially in the beginning of a new console’s lifecycle) resulted in the AAA business as we know it: Big franchises and regular releases to make as much money back as possible.
C) The receipt for selling sequel after sequel was to offer gamers more and more sophisticated (and thus complex / cost-intensive) experiences – each title had to be bigger than the last. The unspoken promise is: Buy our game (again) and we’ll offer you a spectacle you’ve never experienced before.
D) The willingness to take risks has been declined in the recent years as the already unreasonable high development-costs have been further exploding as technical possibilities require armies of experts from graphics/coding, sound-design, animation, networking to story-telling.

The conclusion
Halo and the whole industry have changed over the years. Halo is a mass market product, for Xbox to survive it has to sell. With the high investment on one side there is a lot of pressure to attract as many gamers (and thus potential sales) as possible. Of course it’s about quality too – as MS fortunately understands that turning a 15 year old franchise in an annualized series similar to CoD would cause a fatal burn-out (as we speak franchise fatigue IS a huge problem for Halo). MS has long-term plans for Halo. It’s not solely about H5 – we’re talking about the next decade of Halo games.

Still don’t understand what is going on? I’ll spell it out for you:
1.) Halo has to attract as many gamers as possible – which isn’t limited to but also includes gamers who grew up with other franchises. In order to achieve that compromises will have to be made which is always a tricky balancing act.
2.) The unspoken rules of AAA development and the large number of sequels force change – even if that change isn’t exactly required to enhance the quality of your formula. Change in that system is necessary to convince a large group of people that your franchise isn’t becoming stale – that it still offers a fresh experience. It’s only natural that hardcore fans and the broader Halo population have different perceptions when it comes to said change (while gamer A doesn’t even realize that something has changed at all – gamer B perceives it as just the right amount of freshness).
Keep in mind that you can afford doing relatively little if you’re at the top (see CoD, Assasin’s Creed) - but the longer the game drags on the more pressure will build up to mix up your experience.
3.) If you thought through the above the comparisons to chess, sports and Counter Strike simply do not work as there is a completely different business model behind those games – none coming even close to that of the AAA console industry.

Bottom line
For all the people saying: I understand that – but it doesn’t have to be this way! … I actually fully agree!

Halo could be different. But that would mean exiting that whole AAA craze. Fewer releases, long-time support, empowering the community (map editor,…) – all of that could be a reality… but for a price.
Which brings me back to that initial dialog.

AAA development does have it’s obvious downsides – but it also offered us spectacular experiences (audiovisual magic, high production values throughout the games).
The real question is: Would you be willing to sacrifice that?
The truth is: Demanding a gameplay experience that fits your special tastes AND craving for that next big epic Halo experience with all of it’s bells and whistles just isn’t realistic in any way.
Yes, it once was as Halo was THE ‘in-thing’ for a while – but that time is long gone.

Now it all comes down to this: You can’t have it all fellow Halo fans!

2

Just my personal opinion: I think 343i did a great job in H5 so far.

I try to accept the game for what it is: It’s an awesome AAA production.
I’m sure it will offer enough MP goodness to entertain me for me months - I don’t expect it to have the same long legs as H2 or H3, but I’m perfectly fine with that.

Not only Halo but my life has changed a lot over time too.
And while I know that all Halo games had a lot of depth to them I’ve reached a certain limit in terms of developement of my skills.
The reason for that is simple: Not enough time anymore.

In the H5 Beta I had the feeling that I could explore a whole new set of abilites - all of which were within my reach.
I love that - and I’m looking forward to the experience :slight_smile:

3

there is a lot of opinion dressed as fact here

4

Or, Halo could break free of the console cycle altogether by releasing on PC. In which case we really could have it all.

5

> 2533274836395701;3:
> there is a lot of opinion dressed as fact here

Please feel free to explain!

6

> 2533274793332039;5:
> > 2533274836395701;3:
> > there is a lot of opinion dressed as fact here
>
>
> Please feel free to explain!

You’re arguing under the assumption that sales directly relates to complexity and being “evolved”. That the only way to sell a game is to adhere to currently popular mechanics. That only one type of game and one set of mechanics sells at any one time.

Sales comes from making quality products that offer the players something they want. Nintendo have continually offered experiences only available through their franchises and have done very well in the process. If you offer the same as everyone else, you have competition.

You don’t get a head of everyone by playing follow the leader.

7

IDC!

Gotta Get’em all!!

8

> 2533274836395701;3:
> there is a lot of opinion dressed as fact here8

Well the same is true for most of people that have an opposite stance. (not talking directly about you)
As already said, there are people comparing Halo to chess and sports, and they say that those also haven’t changed that much which just isn’t true, chess has changed A LOT also a lot of sports have changed very much. So these people try to sell opinion as fact too.

There is a lot more of these things on both sides, and even then, noone is wrong for themselves, if you don’t like it then you have every right to do so, you are not allowed to say the game has to be changed because there are people who still like what is happening to the game.
The same goes for all the supporters, they have every right to love the game, and they don’t have to explain why because it is their right to do so, but they also don’t have the right to tell people that they should stick to the old games.

In my own oppinion Halo 5 is an awesome game and I love the changes they have made because I can’t play classic Halo for more than a few matches anymore before I get bored, but still would want to have some new classicc Halo 5, which I think that I will get with custom games in Halo 5.
In the end it all comes down to preference and I think that we have to accept that Halo could never be as big as it was, not because of the new fetures, no, just because people are more interested in other game, and that has nothing to do with the changes made to Halo.

9

Sure.

Halo is a mass market product, a product for the consumers.

That’s because they’re making a mass market and consumer product.

Seems more like they’re implementing things based on how well they think it’ll sell then think about the gameplay as an afterthought.

I haven’t played any Witcher game, but I get the impression they don’t really think about sells at all when doing whatever they’re doing gameplaywise.

10

> You’re arguing under the assumption that sales directly relates to complexity and being “evolved”. That the only way to sell a game is to adhere to currently popular mechanics. That only one type of game and one set of mechanics sells at any one time.
>
> Sales comes from making quality products that offer the players something they want. Nintendo have continually offered experiences only available through their franchises and have done very well in the process. If you offer the same as everyone else, you have competition.
>
> You don’t get a head of everyone by playing follow the leader.

I don’t think similarity in gameplay mechanics plays such a big part in competition. At least definitely not for the general audience. The overall structure of the experience is more important.

Halo competes with CoD as long as both have major MP components which mainly revolve around slayer/deathmatch.

There are multiple expamples of how an FPS has gameplay mechanics near identical to CoD, yet they aren’t considered competitors. That’s because the overall experience you get from these games isn’t -MP Team Deathmatch on small maps over and over again.-

-Bioshock- Story, world-focused, RPG elements. Singleplayer only.
-Metro- Story, world-focused. Singleplayer only
-Wolfenstein- Story, world focused. Singleplayer only.
-Fallout- Massive open world RPG, singleplayer only.
-Far Cry- Open world sandbox
-Borderlands- RPG loot grinding
-Destiny- RPG loot grinding, raiding.

All of these games have some form of ADS and sprint (something that should, according to some, automatically make the experience identical to CoD). They are also all first person shooters. Yet even the classic Halo will always be considered to be closer to CoD than any of these games. A game is defined by its overall structure. An RPG focused on raids and gathering loot? Story focused, 20+ hour long singleplayer? Or Multiplayer shooter with small maps focused on one team deathmatch after another? From the broad perspective, individual gameplay mechanics don’t matter. How the mechanic is implemented to the wider gameplay experience is always more important than the mechanic itself. How else could first person shooters offer such a variety in experiences?

11

> 2533274826066683;8:
> > 2533274836395701;3:
> > there is a lot of opinion dressed as fact here8
>
>
> Well the same is true for most of people that have an opposite stance. (not talking directly about you)
> As already said, there are people comparing Halo to chess and sports, and they say that those also haven’t changed that much which just isn’t true, chess has changed A LOT also a lot of sports have changed very much. So these people try to sell opinion as fact too.

That’s not selling your opinion as fact; that’s being wrong. Mind you, you’re completely missing the point. It’s not that those games never change, but that they don’t change significantly within a short period of time. That is, you don’t see anybody pushing major changes to the basic rules of basketball every few years “to stay relevant”. The whole idea just seems silly.

In reality, whether the idea of not making major changes in sequels seems completely insane or the natural thing to do depends solely on how you view video games. They’re in the difficult spot of being a piece of art on one hand, and a game to be played on the other hand. It doesn’t make sense for a game to change its rules all the time. That’s why the basketball example seems so silly. But then again, a painter probably isn’t going to make the same painting with minor changes and try to pass it off as a new work.

Many video games, like Halo, really have the problem that they’re an indisputable piece of art (the story) and an indisputable game (the multiplayer) attached together. Games that are mainly centered around either one of those experiences don’t really have that problem. Most single player games do well with big changes, whereas most multiplayer only games can very well do years without even releasing a sequel, and when that sequel finally comes, it may have barely any changes.

Ultimately, there are two ways to view video games: art first, game second; and game first, art second. Neither is more correct than the other, but I believe it would be best for everyone to consider which is the view they have. Because while I don’t believe either to be more correct than the other, I’m certain that the view you hold completely determines how it makes sense to you for Halo to move forward.

12

Here’s a chess comparison. Chess has stayed the same forever because it’s one game perfected over (I don’t know, 1000 years?). Let’s say the Chess gods want to make a ‘Chess 2’. The release the game, and it has two more tile rows and a new Chess piece called “emperor”. They also update the previous pieces and make them more detailed. Would you buy this new Chess game if you had the previous?
That’s Halo 2 to 3 right there.
Now let’s say the Chess gods release Chess 3, where they reworked the pieces so that you had a lot more options on how to move. Bigger boards, and you can move more spaces, but it’s all balanced. Would you buy this game if you had the previous 2?
That’s Halo 3 to 5 right there.

13

> 2533274877056440;12:
> Here’s a chess comparison. Chess has stayed the same forever because it’s one game perfected over (I don’t know, 1000 years?). Let’s say the Chess gods want to make a ‘Chess 2’. The release the game, and it has two more tile rows and a new Chess piece called “emperor”. They also update the previous pieces and make them more detailed. Would you buy this new Chess game if you had the previous?
> That’s Halo 2 to 3 right there.
> Now let’s say the Chess gods release Chess 3, where they reworked the pieces so that you had a lot more options on how to move. Bigger boards, and you can move more spaces, but it’s all balanced. Would you buy this game if you had the previous 2?
> That’s Halo 3 to 5 right there.

Is there some point you’re trying to make?

14

> 2533274877056440;12:
> Here’s a chess comparison. Chess has stayed the same forever because it’s one game perfected over (I don’t know, 1000 years?). Let’s say the Chess gods want to make a ‘Chess 2’. The release the game, and it has two more tile rows and a new Chess piece called “emperor”. They also update the previous pieces and make them more detailed. Would you buy this new Chess game if you had the previous?
> That’s Halo 2 to 3 right there.
> Now let’s say the Chess gods release Chess 3, where they reworked the pieces so that you had a lot more options on how to move. Bigger boards, and you can move more spaces, but it’s all balanced. Would you buy this game if you had the previous 2?
> That’s Halo 3 to 5 right there.

Again the analogy to chess just doesn’t work as chess as a game is the anti-thesis of console game AAA business.
Chess as a AAA videogame wouldn’t make any sense business wise. How would you sell that to people every 2-3 years once they bought an edition?

The AAA industry doesn’t perfect gameplay - they sell entertainment erperiences on a regular basis.

You’re right in what you say - but you compare apples to oranges.

15

OP of course we can have everything, we are all self entitled spoilt brats who have no regards for others and if we don’t all get exactly what we want then there will be riots I tell you.

16

> 2533274963840114;10:
> > You’re arguing under the assumption that sales directly relates to complexity and being “evolved”. That the only way to sell a game is to adhere to currently popular mechanics. That only one type of game and one set of mechanics sells at any one time.
> >
> > Sales comes from making quality products that offer the players something they want. Nintendo have continually offered experiences only available through their franchises and have done very well in the process. If you offer the same as everyone else, you have competition.
> >
> > You don’t get a head of everyone by playing follow the leader.
>
>
> I don’t think similarity in gameplay mechanics plays such a big part in competition. At least definitely not for the general audience. The overall structure of the experience is more important.
>
> Halo competes with CoD as long as both have major MP components which mainly revolve around slayer/deathmatch.
>
> There are multiple expamples of how an FPS has gameplay mechanics near identical to CoD, yet they aren’t considered competitors. That’s because the overall experience you get from these games isn’t -MP Team Deathmatch on small maps over and over again.-
>
> -Bioshock- Story, world-focused, RPG elements. Singleplayer only.
> -Metro- Story, world-focused. Singleplayer only
> -Wolfenstein- Story, world focused. Singleplayer only.
> -Fallout- Massive open world RPG, singleplayer only.
> -Far Cry- Open world sandbox
> -Borderlands- RPG loot grinding
> -Destiny- RPG loot grinding, raiding.
>
> All of these games have some form of ADS and sprint (something that should, according to some, automatically make the experience identical to CoD). They are also all first person shooters. Yet even the classic Halo will always be considered to be closer to CoD than any of these games. A game is defined by its overall structure. An RPG focused on raids and gathering loot? Story focused, 20+ hour long singleplayer? Or Multiplayer shooter with small maps focused on one team deathmatch after another? From the broad perspective, individual gameplay mechanics don’t matter. How the mechanic is implemented to the wider gameplay experience is always more important than the mechanic itself. How else could first person shooters offer such a variety in experiences?

Yeah those games offer something different, so they sell well. It’s easier on single player games as you aren’t trying to keep the population, just sell the copy.

Splatoon is a MP shooter but I don’t think anyone thinks it’s after the broader twitch shooter audience.

Because Halo is a MP shooter, and because 343i have set its gameplay at a pace and level that looks the same as COD. It will only attract that crowd. What is Halo’s audience with Halo 5?

17

> 2547348539238747;16:
> > 2533274963840114;10:
> > >
>
>
> Yeah those games offer something different, so they sell well. It’s easier on single player games as you aren’t trying to keep the population, just sell the copy.
>
> Splatoon is a MP shooter but I don’t think anyone thinks it’s after the broader twitch shooter audience.
>
> Because Halo is a MP shooter, and because 343i have set its gameplay at a pace and level that looks the same as COD. It will only attract that crowd. What is Halo’s audience with Halo 5?

I have have a feeling we’ll get to see that at E3. And in the months leading to launch.

For me the only thing original and unique about Halo to begin with is the universe and the story. The series is called Halo, not MP (Arena) Shooter for a reason. And most recently Hunt the Truth has proven that once again.

(Also, most of the development resources already go to the campaign)

18

> 2547348539238747;6:
> > 2533274793332039;5:
> > > 2533274836395701;3:
> > > there is a lot of opinion dressed as fact here
> >
> >
> > Please feel free to explain!
>
>
> You’re arguing under the assumption that sales directly relates to complexity and being “evolved”. That the only way to sell a game is to adhere to currently popular mechanics. That only one type of game and one set of mechanics sells at any one time.
>
> Sales comes from making quality products that offer the players something they want. Nintendo have continually offered experiences only available through their franchises and have done very well in the process. If you offer the same as everyone else, you have competition.
>
> You don’t get a head of everyone by playing follow the leader.

That’s not what I’ve said at all.

  1. I’ve argued that the process of developing AAA games is getting more and more complex and thus costly. For an adequate return on investment your game has to be attractive for as many gamers as possible and you have to sell it on a regular basis.

  2. This has two effects:
    a) You have to find a middle ground that both pleases your old fanbase AND attracts the broader audience as well.
    b) The number of sequels (Halo is a 15 year old franchise!) pushes you to mix up your gameplay experience as you don’t want to become ‘just another Halo game’ in the eyes of the broader audience - which again is a balancing act between old and new.

Nintendo is a pretty good example of another approach to games developement: They keep both hardware and software developement costs low (always behind in the hardware race, very basic online funtionality,…) and concentrate on an audience that buys their consoles first and foremost for their own IPs.
Which allows them to take creative risks.

MS and 343i? They’re in a different position.

19

What if the triple A industry is the problem with gaming today?

20

The problem with your logic here is that this system is INCREDIBLY FLAWED AND SELF DESTRUCTIVE. It is a very scary prospect to go out and make a AAA game that doesn’t play it very safe. But not doing it, and sticking too closely to trends will also cause a franchise to decline.

Every franchise that falls into it’s trap not only fails to grow it’s playerbase, it falls apart.

Resident evil
Dead Space
Medal of Honour
Killzone
COD is going down this road
Halo
etc

Devs and publishers needs to collectively grow a pair and start making unique, interesting games again or the console market is going to implode on itself. There is already a mass exodus to PC and mobile happening. Every AAA studio releasing, boring, uninspired rip offs of each other’s games is only going to speed up the process.